Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

As Kirsten said... ( Clinton would never have gotten away with this) why did the media protect Obama for so long?

Not just Obama, but everyone responsible for Benghazi? Kirsten is a well known democratic supporter. Pay special attention to what she has to say.

House Speaker John Boehner is facing mounting pressure to create a special or select committee to investigate the Benghazi terror attacks in which four Americans were killed.

The House resolution to form a special committee now has at least 139 co-sponsors who are putting Boehner in the difficult position of leading efforts to get the White House to release emails on Benghazi-gate but not agreeing to the demands of many rank-and-file Republicans.

The resolution is sponsored by Virginia Rep. Frank Wolf who suggested to Boehner in a forceful, four-page letter Thursday that the Obama administration perhaps failed to adequately prevent the deaths of the Americans killed and injured in the Sept. 11, 2012, attacks on the U.S. outpost in Benghazi, Libya, and that not appointing the committee could make the Republican-led House “complicit in that failure.”

An ABC News story said the CIA’s explanation of the Benghazi events changed 12 different times before being made public.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said five days after the attacks, while making the rounds on the Sunday talk shows, that the strikes appeared to be “spontaneous” and sparked by protests elsewhere in the Middle East about an anti-Islamic video.

However, references to “Islamic militants” and terror attacks in the original CIA reports were scrubbed from Rice’s final talk points.

Wolf said that after the ABC News report the number of co-sponsors increased to 144, about 60 percent of the House Republican Caucus.

The pressure to form such a committee also increased after three career State Department employees and self-proclaimed “whistle blowers” testified Wednesday about Benghazi before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Affairs.

Wolf argues a select committee is needed to strengthen subpoena powers and so one chairman or director can bring together the expertise of the different standing committees.

“If you don’t use the subpoena power, people will not come in and testify, because if you’re 50 years old and you’re a federal employee, you have two kids, maybe two college tuitions, you have a mortgage on your house in Arlington County, you’re not going to risk your career,” Wolf told conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt on Friday.

He also said somebody from the Armed Services Committee should be included on the panel because the Defense Department is involved in the Benghazi matter. And the Intelligence Committee should be included because the CIA and the office of the Director of National Intelligence are also involved.

Boehner on Thursday again declined to commit to appointing a committee, saying he has “confidence” in the committees already holding investigations.

Such committees have been appointed to investigate Watergate and the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

Beyond the issue of whether State Department officials and White House deputies changed the CIA memo for political reasons, in the height of Obama’s re-election effort, are issues of whether the U.S. provided adequate security at the compound and made full attempts to repel the attacks and rescue Americans.

Republican Sens. John McCain, Arizona, and Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, renewed their call after the Wednesday hearing for a select committee.

Graham, who with McCain had led Senate Republican efforts to get to the bottom of the Benghazi issue, told The Hill that he has urged Boehner to create the committee.

“I've raised it to him, I've talked to him,” he told the newspaper. “It's his decision to make, but we're making a big mistake by not doing a select committee.”

Actually, that's not true. The entire thing was a well organized terrorist plot that the administration was warned about. Once the video was flat out blamed, repeatedly (go to you tube and look up videos of the administration flat out saying this was due to the video), THEN there started being a pouring outrage out of the middle east. It was a direct result of the lie our administration told. They knew full well that this was going to happen.

Quoting Raintree:

Do any of you understand the word confusion?

Because there were multiple/major/angry protests that day- and most were because of that idiot video.

Why wasn't Chris Stevens at the Embassy?

Quoting kailu1835:

Except that if the video hadn't been blamed in the first place, AFTER the fact, then there would have been no mass outcry.

Quoting survivorinohio:

I know that there was a film sequence made that angered a good piece of the world. I know that a good deal of violence erupted and that somebody needed to say something.

I can no more compare the Catholic church to the extremes of Islam or Christianity for that matter today any more than I can compare Benghazi with Watergate.

Quoting 12hellokitty:

It was a youtube clip, not much different then many music videos. Bowie just released an anti-Catholic independent music video, yet there is no outcry from Obama or the MSM.....

Quoting survivorinohio:

You are referring to the antiIslam independant film trailer?

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

Of course not this is much worse. Lives were lost here

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

I really wish they had chosen a different speaker. This guy doesn't seem to have any backbone.

If this had been a republican and this had happened weeks before the election.....................

Not only is this worse than Watergate, no one was killed during Watergate.

I see no comparison to watergate at all.

Now I admit I dont know all about Benghazi but as I understand it its about how intelligence was channelled and accusations that some truth was concealed all regarding an attack on our embassy by outside forces.

Watergate was all about Richard Nixons campaign cheating by bugging their opponant.

To me watergate was blataant crookery where as this situation is way more complicated and the attack clearly beyond the control of anyone in power here. I think everyone wants to know and understand all the intelligence we collect but its way more complicated than that. No one could have stopped what was being planned and sometimes just showing the force necessary to try and defend such an attack is enough to cause even more violence. Things are tedious when dealing diplomatically at times. You cannot act as you would on your own soil.

I see no comparison.

You are missing the whole point. Evidence is coming out that shows the Obama administration intentionally misleading the public to support the Obama narrative days before the election. The made up narrative about a youtube trailer created worldwide violent protests. No one knew anything about the youtube trailer until Obama and Clinton used it as a cover up. They knew the sheeply MSM would go along, because none of them wanted to be the one to expose the lies and cause Obama the election.

Brother Geraghty leads the Morning Jolt today with the breaking news
from ABC that President Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney, lied on behalf
of his principal when he told the public that the fraudulent Benghazi
talking-points were essentially an intelligence community product that
represented the IC’s best analysis of what had happened on September 11.

Steve Hayes broke the essence of this news in the Weekly Standard
a week ago, so maybe it’s better to describe ABC’s report “breaking
elaboration.” Recall, though, that the fraudulent talking-points were
the basis for the fraudulent appearance on the Sunday talk shows by
President Obama’s ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice. She pretended on
behalf of her principal that the jihadist massacre in Benghazi resulted
from a spontaneous “protest” provoked by the purported scourge of
Islamophobia (here, an anti-Islamic Internet video). As the
administration well knew – indeed, knew from on-scene intel supplied
throughout the siege – the State Department compound was actually
subjected to a coordinated attack by al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists.

ABC
News reports that the talking-points went through at least 12 different
edits, gradually deleting, among other key things, references to Ansar
al-Sharia. That’s the local al Qaeda franchise that orchestrated the
Benghazi operation, in which four Americans, including our ambassador to
Libya, were murdered and many others were wounded, some quite
seriously. The rewrites to which the talking-points were subjected
blatantly contradict Carney’s whoppers, which maintained that the
talking points were the substantially unvarnished assessment of
intelligence professionals as to which only a “single adjustment” was
made by the White House and State Department (changing “consulate” to
“diplomatic facility”), and any other changes were “stylistic and not substantive.”

Two thoughts occur.

First,
does the White House press corps have any self-respect? Sometime during
the administration of that other Clinton, these journalists went from
seeing their job as watchdog keeping democratic government honest to
admiring raconteurs of how artfully the were lied to. Compared to Bill
Clinton, Barack Obama is a crude liar – more brass-knuckles,
Chicago-style “What are you gonna do about it?” than Yale Law School
meets Bubba glib – and Benghazi cannot be sloughed off as “lies about
sex.” Are these reporters going to keep functioning as the adjunct to
Carney’s office, or will a few of them actually start treating a
travesty involving four murdered Americans as if it were nearly as
serious as a kerfuffle involving sixteen words?

Second is the State Department. In my weekend column
– on the home-page this morning – I explain how Obama’s Mohammed Video
fraud undermined the Islamic-democracy project. This project was the top
Middle East policy priority of the Bush- and Clinton-era State
Department, and Obama has claimed to champion it. We now know, however,
that the Obama State Department, under Secretary Clinton, was just as
complicit as the White House in peddling the video canard, and may have
been even more culpable in editing the truth out of the talking points –
motivated, as Jim observes, by a naked desire to keep Congress and the
public in the dark about Clinton’s recklessness in failing to ensure
adequate security at a facility that had already been targeted by
terrorists before the night of September

Quoting Raintree:

So you have no evidence?

I don't have a television.

Quoting Carpy:

Umm. Do you watch the news? Even the left wing media is beginning to hammer on this.

Quoting Raintree:

What has been covered up here?

What lies were told?

What? When? Who? Where?

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

What lies were told to cover up Those attacks and deaths?

Quoting ..MoonShine..:

Thank you!!! Jeebus H. I'm not say the administration is free of responsibility, but let's get it together, people.

Quoting mehamil1:

How much happened on GWB watch? A lot. Outraged republicans? 0

This is partison bullshit. It wouldn't surprise me if the administration lied but they are grasping at straws in their frantic search to find evidence that probably does not exist. It's political. I don't appreciate this. At all.

To all of you Obamaphiles, did any of you even bother to watch the hearings? Especially the one this week where Mr. Hicks and two other whistle blowers testified? If not, then your opinions are about as valid as Obama being president is.

His testimony changed since he's sworn testimony earlier and the GOP were making him say things that were wrong.

Quoting grandmab125:

To all of you Obamaphiles, did any of you even bother to watch the hearings? Especially the one this week where Mr. Hicks and two other whistle blowers testified? If not, then your opinions are about as valid as Obama being president is.

So you think that the administration sacrificed those people for the election?

Why was the attack on the embassy launched?

I still dont think it compares to Watergate. I agree with another poster that Mogadishu/Somalia has a likeness to it all.

Quoting kailu1835:

The Whitehouse was tipped off about the situation with plenty of time for them to get those guys out of there, and they did nothing. Then, after it happened, fully knowing why, they blamed it on a completely unrelated video. Its not that complicated.

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

Of course not this is much worse. Lives were lost here

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

I really wish they had chosen a different speaker. This guy doesn't seem to have any backbone.

If this had been a republican and this had happened weeks before the election.....................

Not only is this worse than Watergate, no one was killed during Watergate.

I see no comparison to watergate at all.

Now I admit I dont know all about Benghazi but as I understand it its about how intelligence was channelled and accusations that some truth was concealed all regarding an attack on our embassy by outside forces.

Watergate was all about Richard Nixons campaign cheating by bugging their opponant.

To me watergate was blataant crookery where as this situation is way more complicated and the attack clearly beyond the control of anyone in power here. I think everyone wants to know and understand all the intelligence we collect but its way more complicated than that. No one could have stopped what was being planned and sometimes just showing the force necessary to try and defend such an attack is enough to cause even more violence. Things are tedious when dealing diplomatically at times. You cannot act as you would on your own soil.

I see no comparison.

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong. Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.GeorgeWashingtonCarver

They same the same thing happened with Bush with 9/11. Wher was all of the uproar then?

The fact that Bush knew 9/11 was going to happen, and do nothing to stop it, makes him responsible. But, people don't want to hear that.

The fact of the matte is that all POTUS' have covered up something, whether it was minute or a big deal. One thing I've noticed is that the faked public outrage depends on who's in office.

Quoting kailu1835:

He was warned and then tried to cover up his incompetency by lying about what happened. The fact that he knew it was going to happen and did nothing makes him responsible.

Quoting RandRMomma:

Smells like more partisan bullshit.

Why don't we hold ALL POTUS' responsible for all embassy attacks that happened under their Presidency, and any terrorist attacks that happened on American soil during their Presidency. Fair is fair, right?

To me, it seems like people are overly scrutinizing Kbama's Presidency.

Actually, that's not true. The entire thing was a well organized terrorist plot that the administration was warned about. Once the video was flat out blamed, repeatedly (go to you tube and look up videos of the administration flat out saying this was due to the video), THEN there started being a pouring outrage out of the middle east. It was a direct result of the lie our administration told. They knew full well that this was going to happen.

Quoting Raintree:

Do any of you understand the word confusion?

Because there were multiple/major/angry protests that day- and most were because of that idiot video.

Why wasn't Chris Stevens at the Embassy?

Quoting kailu1835:

Except that if the video hadn't been blamed in the first place, AFTER the fact, then there would have been no mass outcry.

Quoting survivorinohio:

I know that there was a film sequence made that angered a good piece of the world. I know that a good deal of violence erupted and that somebody needed to say something.

I can no more compare the Catholic church to the extremes of Islam or Christianity for that matter today any more than I can compare Benghazi with Watergate.

Quoting 12hellokitty:

It was a youtube clip, not much different then many music videos. Bowie just released an anti-Catholic independent music video, yet there is no outcry from Obama or the MSM.....

Quoting survivorinohio:

You are referring to the antiIslam independant film trailer?

Quoting 12hellokitty:

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

Of course not this is much worse. Lives were lost here

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

I really wish they had chosen a different speaker. This guy doesn't seem to have any backbone.

If this had been a republican and this had happened weeks before the election.....................

Not only is this worse than Watergate, no one was killed during Watergate.

I see no comparison to watergate at all.

Now I admit I dont know all about Benghazi but as I understand it its about how intelligence was channelled and accusations that some truth was concealed all regarding an attack on our embassy by outside forces.

Watergate was all about Richard Nixons campaign cheating by bugging their opponant.

To me watergate was blataant crookery where as this situation is way more complicated and the attack clearly beyond the control of anyone in power here. I think everyone wants to know and understand all the intelligence we collect but its way more complicated than that. No one could have stopped what was being planned and sometimes just showing the force necessary to try and defend such an attack is enough to cause even more violence. Things are tedious when dealing diplomatically at times. You cannot act as you would on your own soil.

I see no comparison.

You are missing the whole point. Evidence is coming out that shows the Obama administration intentionally misleading the public to support the Obama narrative days before the election. The made up narrative about a youtube trailer created worldwide violent protests. No one knew anything about the youtube trailer until Obama and Clinton used it as a cover up. They knew the sheeply MSM would go along, because none of them wanted to be the one to expose the lies and cause Obama the election.

How far you go in life depends on your being: tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of both the weak and strong. Because someday in life you would have been one or all of these.GeorgeWashingtonCarver

Your comparison makes no sense. Obama I POTUS, and he's a "valid" President.

I don't have cable. So, I didn't tune in. However, I read. From what I've read, the whistleblowers stories have changed.

Quoting grandmab125:

To all of you Obamaphiles, did any of you even bother to watch the hearings? Especially the one this week where Mr. Hicks and two other whistle blowers testified? If not, then your opinions are about as valid as Obama being president is.

You want to know what the crux of the matter is? WHO ORDERED THE STAND DOWN.

The White House surely rues the day that someone came up with the bright idea of blaming an obscure YouTube video for the “demonstrations” that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three others at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. As cover stories go, this one never accomplished anything more than distracting Congress from the real issue.

Three State Department officials with direct knowledge of what happened pointed the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
in the right direction on Wednesday. Their testimony makes it clear
that whether the administration altered talking points, or lied about a
video, distracts from the question of life and death: Who ordered the
military to abandon Americans under fire?

Gregory Hicks, the career diplomat who took charge of the Libyan mission upon Stevens‘ death, told the committee he desperately sought a special forces team to fly to the aid of his besieged comrades in Benghazi. “Bring our people home,” Mr. Hicks
pleaded to the head of special operations for Africa. This commander
was “furious” that he was powerless to help, as superiors ordered him to
leave the Americans to fend for themselves. The rescue teams were
assembled in Tripoli, ready and spoiling for the fight, but they were
“not authorized to travel.”

“Leave no man behind” is the inviolate
rule of the men and women of the military who willingly put their lives
on the line to carry out duty. An order to violate the inviolate
principle would have to come from a politician, and the White House has no interest in clarifying where the order came from. President Obama’s spokesman, Jay Carney,
blew off the hearing and its revelations as a mere partisan attempt to
politicize the tragedy. “The president has been committed from Day One
to two things — making sure that those who are responsible for the
deaths of four Americans are found and brought to justice, and that we
do everything we need to do to ensure that this kind of attack cannot
happen again.”

The only man brought to “justice” so far has been
Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, producer of the low-budget “Innocence of
Muslims” video that didn’t actually inspire anyone. The FBI waited until
May 2 — nearly eight months after the attack — to release photographs
of three jihadists filmed at the scene of the crime.

The FBI, the State Department and the White House
knew from Day One that the Islamic militant group Ansar al-Sharia
played a lead role the attack. This inconvenient truth wasn’t publicized
because it runs contrary to the administration’s foreign policy, built
as it is on the belief that the war on terrorism is over. The
administration acts as if Islamic radicals put their suicide vests in
storage after Mr. Obama won the Nobel Prize for achieving world peace.

Telling
lies to preserve the president’s election prospects and his image as a
peacemaker is bad, a willful decision to leave Americans behind on a
battlefield is worse, and blindness to Islamic extremism is worst of all
because it will continue to get Americans killed.

The evidence so
far suggests that pleas to strengthen the defenses of the Benghazi
compound before the attack were rebuffed at the highest levels of the State Department.
(That’s the level where Hillary Clinton worked.) Additional men and
equipment could have provided the precious minutes between the attack
and safety for the ambassador.

The investigation continues, and if
the buck stops at Hillary Clinton that should be the end of her dreams
of 2016. Rep. Darrell E. Issa, the oversight committee’s
chairman, says he won’t stop until he finds out who ordered the
military response team to stand down. Given the increasingly defensive
crouch at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, it’s likely that the buck stops on
the avenue.

I never heard that that particular problem *that day* was definitely due to a video.

I remember reading the administration say that they were looking into why that one went the way it did, while others were just major protests outside embassies.

Why was Chris Stevens in Benghazi rather than at the Embassy that day?

Where is your evidence? Because I'm still not seeing it.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

Yes, they did lie. You clearly Do not consider it lying To repeatedly say the deaths were a result of a violent protest sparked by a video clip when they KNEW it was an organized and Deliberate attack by an extremist Islamic terrorists. There is no room for further discussion, as we obviously do not even agree on the meaning of the word "lie".

Quoting Raintree:

They didn't lie.

They also didn't start throwing the word crusade around immediately and make it worse than it already was.

He shouldn't have been at that outpost on 9/11.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

*SMH* Four Americans were killed - the Admin outright LIED And you spin it as "minimizing"???? They did not "minimize" what happened, they LIED about what happened.

Quoting survivorinohio:

I dont remember an Im tough on terror spiel. I remember the big points in the last election being a timeline for Iraq, healthcare and budget.

I think that millions of things are hidden from the public every day for a variety of reasons. Some of them I agree with. Some of them I dont. .

I dont think that all the reasons information is concealed are being considered and I disagree that minimizing an event that was beyond their control is at all like sneaking around in the dark committing felonies in order to cheat and how the two can be compared kinda blows my mind.

I still dont find it to be comparable to watergate at all.

Quoting LoveMyBoyK:

The way I see it, they LIED to the American people about what they KNEW had happened because Obama was using his "See, I am tough on Terror" spiel as part of his re-election efforts and Hilary knew She Would be making a run in 2016. They wanted NO association with a terror attack and whitewashed the Whole thing deliberately. How deanyone still claims they did nothing wromg is absolutely mind blowing.

Quoting survivorinohio:

Do you have knowledge of what diplomatic protocols include in that region? Do you KNOW there was something that could have been done that would have reduced causalties without risking more?.

It seems to me many people like to quarterback from their kitchens or dens or even offices very far removed from the situation and that those quarterbacks are never happy with the plays on the field. We donthave all the information that those on the field have, given what comes out in courts is never the WHOLE truth. Its pieces.

Quoting candlegal:

Let's see on the one hand bugging his opponent-no one killed

On the other hand doing nothing and 4 americans are killed

Not just doing nothing, refusing to let others do something

Lie, lie and lie some more about it.

again, 4 americans killed

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

Of course not this is much worse. Lives were lost here

Quoting survivorinohio:

Quoting candlegal:

I really wish they had chosen a different speaker. This guy doesn't seem to have any backbone.

If this had been a republican and this had happened weeks before the election.....................

Not only is this worse than Watergate, no one was killed during Watergate.

I see no comparison to watergate at all.

Now I admit I dont know all about Benghazi but as I understand it its about how intelligence was channelled and accusations that some truth was concealed all regarding an attack on our embassy by outside forces.

Watergate was all about Richard Nixons campaign cheating by bugging their opponant.

To me watergate was blataant crookery where as this situation is way more complicated and the attack clearly beyond the control of anyone in power here. I think everyone wants to know and understand all the intelligence we collect but its way more complicated than that. No one could have stopped what was being planned and sometimes just showing the force necessary to try and defend such an attack is enough to cause even more violence. Things are tedious when dealing diplomatically at times. You cannot act as you would on your own soil.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.